Is your Mass in line with Vatican II?

[RSiscoe]

itsjustdave1988:

RSiscoe,

Real life sometimes takes precedence over cyber life.

I wrote the pope an email asking what he meant by the words “counter-syllabus.” I’m thinking he may be a little busy for a speedy response, however. We shall see.

Just curious, why did you send the Pope an e-mail to ask what he meant by “counter-syllabus”? After all, Shawn McElhinney told you what he meant. He meant that “counter-syllabus” did not mean it was “counter” to the “Syllabus”. No! Why would anyone get the idea that counter syllabus, or “contra - syllabus”, meant it was “contra” to the “syllabus”? If Shawn McElhinney said it it must be true, right? After all it was Shawn McElhinney who said it. By the way, who the heck is Shawn McElhinney. Is he a previous Pope? No? … A Cardinal of the Church? No you say? … Perhaps a Bishop? No? … A priest, then? No? … Then who is he? Oh… I see, he is an average ordinary lay-person like you and I? And you expect me to believe that “counter syllabus” does not mean counter to the Syllabus simply because someone with absolutely no authority wrote it and put it on the internet?

But what about what Yves Congar, who was a periti at Vatican II along with Cardinal Ratzinger, said. He said the same as Cardinal Ratzinger:

“It cannot be denied that the affirmation of religious liberty by Vatican II says materially something other than what the Syllabus of 1864 said, and even just about the opposite of propositions 16, 17 and 19 of this document.” (quoted by Father George de Nantes, CRC, no. 113, p.3.)

Maybe you can ask SShawn McElhinney what he meant. Let’s see if he can twist those words to mean what they don’t say.

(and to answer one of the questions you are probably thinking. Modernists understand “Tradition” different you and I. They don’t understand it only as that which has been passed on, but that which has evolved through “the pondering in the hearts of the believers”. To them, you can have a teaching completely change meanings, yet still be in line with evolving tradition. BTW, that notion of Tradition is what was condemned by Pius X in Pascendi)

But, rather than us bickering back and forth, I know what we can do that will probably actually be beneficial for both you and I, and anyone else who is confused about what the Church teaches regarding “religious liberty”.

We started a “diologue” several months ago on this subject, but did not finish. Why don’t we continue on that thread (since I spent a lot of time writing something and did not receive a response) so we can clearly see what the Church teaches regarding “religious liberty” - then “seperation of Church and state”, and “freedom of conscience”. I am sure you will admit that there is a lot of confusion on all three of these points. I really think we can clear up the confusion on these points, since it is actually not hard to properly understand.

Then we can do two things: we can see exactly what the Church teaches on these points (and how true those teachings are), then compare the teachings to what Vatican II teaches. Then I will give you the chance to show me how to reconcile the two.

Fair enough?

OK, I will try to locate the other thread we started a few months ago and bring it up to the top. It is in the “apologetics” section, and I think it is titled “religious indifferentism”. I believe it is a thread you started just before Lent began in 2005.

I’ll see you over there.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe,

But what about what Yves Congar, who was a periti at Vatican II along with Cardinal Ratzinger, said. He said the same as Cardinal Ratzinger

Incorrect. He said his own thoughts, not those of Cardinal Ratzinger.

Others at Vatican II asserted that Scripture contained error. Consequently, simply quoting a periti is rather dubious. Some were correct in their opinion, some were not.

You are incorrect in your opinion about what “counter-syllabus” means. My point that seemed to zoom right past you is that as a Catholic, you ought to have questioned the author as to what he himself meant, not ASSUME the Lefebvrists are correct, and join yourself to their dissent with an Ecumencial Council.

Your dissent with the pope regarding the orthodoxy of Vatican II is shameful.

Instead, this is the Instruction of the Holy See, signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, which you should have submitted to in your questioning of Catholic doctrine…

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Instruction on the ecclesial vocation of theologian:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

Never forgetting that he is also a member of the People of God, the theologian must foster respect for them and be committed to offering them a teaching which in no way does harm to the doctrine of the faith. (par. 11) … the theologian is officially charged with the task of presenting and illustrating the doctrine of the faith in its integrity and with full accuracy. (par. 22)

… the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect. This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith. (par. 23)

… the Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion … The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule… it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies… But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church’s Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission. (par. 24)

… Even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion (cf. Rom 14:1-15; 1 Cor 8; 10: 23-33 ) . For the same reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them. (par. 27)… The preceding considerations have a particular application to the case of the theologian who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching… conscience does not constitute an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine. (par. 28)

… In any case there should never be a diminishment of that fundamental openness loyally to accept the teaching of the Magisterium as is fitting for every believer by reason of the obedience of faith. (par. 29)

… If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian’s part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments. In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the “mass media”, but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth. (par. 30)… a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail. (par. 31)

to be continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued …
… In opposition to and in competition with the authentic magisterium, there thus arises a kind of “parallel magisterium” of theologians… it can cause great spiritual harm by opposing itself to the Magisterium of the Pastors. Indeed, when dissent succeeds in extending its influence to the point of shaping; a common opinion, it tends to become the rule of conduct. This cannot but seriously trouble the People of God and lead to contempt for true authority. (par 34)

The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent. (par 36)… the theologian who is not disposed to think with the Church (“sentire cum Ecclesia”) contradicts the commitment he freely and knowingly accepted to teach in the name of the Church. (par 37)

… Finally, argumentation appealing to the obligation to follow one’s own conscience cannot legitimate dissent. … because while the theologian, like every believer, must follow his conscience, he is also obliged to form it… Setting up a supreme magisterium of conscience in opposition to the magisterium of the Church means adopting a principle of free examination incompatible with the economy of Revelation and its transmission in the Church and thus also with a correct understanding of theology and the role of the theologian

… Polling public opinion to determine the proper thing to think or do, opposing the Magisterium by exerting the pressure of public opinion, making the excuse of a “consensus” among theologians, maintaining that the theologian is the prophetical spokesman of a “base” or autonomous community which would be the source of all truth, all this indicates a grave loss of the sense of truth and of the sense of the Church.

…The acts of assent and submission to the Word entrusted to the Church under the guidance of the Magisterium are directed ultimately to Him and lead us into the realm of true freedom.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe,

Just curious, why did you send the Pope an e-mail to ask what he meant …

Just curious, why didn’t you? Are you afraid that you will find out something you don’t want to hear? That Pope Benedict does not agree with your ridiculous Lefebvrist claim that Gaudium et Spes is a break with Catholic tradition?

You seem to prefer affected ignorance to the truth.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe,

I can certainly discuss religious liberty with you on another thread, but I suggest you thoroughly read Fr. Brian Harrison’s articles linked to above before you simply promulgate the typical Lefebvrist response, already thoroughly refuted by Fr. Brian, about what Vatican II taught on the subject.

But what of your original position? Do you still cling to the absurd notion, given the corpus of Cardinal Ratzingers texts, that he believed Gaudium et Spes contradicted Catholic doctrine? How can we even take such a thesis seriously? How does such a thesis square with his assertion that Vatican II is in accord with "the unbroken, the unique Tradition of the Church and of her faith." Like other Lefebvrist apologists, you seem to attempt to enlist Cardinal Ratzinger to help your argument. However, for those who have actually read Ratzinger and not just *sound bites *such an approach is laughable.

You failed to substantively address any of this in your prior rant, and I was just curious as to why. Aren’t you up for the challenge? It seems to me you haven’t even read much of what Ratzinger has written if you really are convinced he thought Gaudium Et Spes contradicted doctrinal condemnations of the past.

What do you say about Ratzinger’s view of the infallibility of ecumenical councils:

… it is clear that conciliar decisions are infallible in the sense that I can be confident that here the inheritance of Christ is correctly interpreted (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Canon of Criticism, Salt of the Earth (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1997))

Or Ratzinger’s view of the binding nature of Vatican II…

It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Msgr. Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church. …

(Cardinal Ratzinger’s July 13, 1988 remarks to the Bishops of Chile regarding the Lefebvre Schism)

Your choice not to reply to these is rather curious.

 

[RSiscoe]

I am not sure why you always try to portray me as a “Lefebvrist”. I have told you many times that I actually have some problems with the SSPX and am not a member of that group. I attend an Indult Mass, which is fully “approved”.

Some SSPX people may use arguments that I and others use, but that does not make them “Lefebvrist” arguments. I have never quoted Archbishop Lefebvre on these boards as an authority. On a related point: I don’t think I have ever quoted any laymen to support anything I have said: I quote infallible decrees from Church councils, past Pope, or other high ranking clergy, and not John Doe laymen’s website, which has absolutely no authority whatsoever.

It is useless to argue back and forth about what Cardinal Ratzinger meant by “Counter-Syllabus”. To me it is very clear, but you find some way to twist the obvious meaning, just like you did when we debated “Justification by faith alone”. And you ought to be ashamed of the fact that you actually defended that Protestant heresy. Shame on you.

Regarding this quote: “**It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Msgr. Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church.” **

We will see if Vatican II taught heresy or not on the other thread. The reason I wanted to move to that thread is so we can first discuss the actual teachings of the Church regarding religious liberty, liberty of conscience, and seperation of Church and state. I wrote a response to you over there which I thought expressed the teaching of the Church pretty clearly on the matter, so that should serve as a good foundation to begin the discussion.

Then, after we have clarified what the Church teaches on these three subjects, we can compare that clear teaching to what Vatican II taught.

Then, I will be very glad to listen to you explain how the two are not contrary.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

We will see if Vatican II taught heresy or not on the other thread.

Actually, we will only see if a professed Catholic dissents with the pope or not. Which relates to this traditionalist view…

St. Pius X: “there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope.” (Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)"

Shame on you.

No faithful Catholic ought to be be ashamed of adhering to St. Pius X’s allocution in defense of papal doctrines and councilar decisions.

 

[DavidJoseph]

RSiscoe:

You are wrong. Vatican II is infallible and NOT just a pastoral council, and it taught NOTHING contrary to Church doctrine. First of all, councils are not classified as “dogmatic” and “pastoral;” only as “local” and “ecumenical.” Vatican II was an ecumenical council, and just like all previous ecumenical council, Vatican II contained both pastoral and dogmatic declarations and statements. Vatican II produced two dogmatic constitutions in Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum. Even the pastoral constitutions, such as Gaudium et Spes, develops the Church teachings and then applies that teaching to what was going on in the world at the time–here we see both dogmatic and pastoral aspects.

The teachings of Vatican II require your assent – no exceptions. Take a look at what Pope Paul VI said (all emphasis is added, btw): “The Council is a great act of the teaching Church, and those who adhere to the Council thereby recognize and honor the teaching authority of the Church. In view of the pastoral character of the Council, it has avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary way dogmas carrying the note of infallibility. Nevertheless, its teachings carry the weight of the supreme ordinary teaching authority. This ordinary teaching authority, so evidently authentic, must be received docilely and sincerely by all the faithful in accordance with the intentions of the Council regarding the nature and purpose of each of the documents” (General Audience Address of January 12, 1966).

In short, there are no defined dogmas requiring the assent of divine faith. But as anyone moderately informed about theology knows, infallibility as a charism extends beyond matters of dogma and also encompasses doctrine taught by the pope and the united episcopate. Such teaching is referred to by several terms – one of which is the “supreme ordinary magisterium” – a higher degree of authority than the ordinary mode of magisterial teaching.

The teachings of Vatican II have a varying degree of theological qualification – the emphasis on “extraordinary statements of dogma” was to assert that the Council was not imposing anything on the corpus of what was to be held with divine faith. Of course for those who know that “[t]he obligation by which are bound is not confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church” (cf. Syllabus of Errors #22) this is not a problem. For those who assert a proposition condemned in the Syallabus, however, there are huge problems.

And before you insist that Vatican II made no claim at teaching infallibly, then where did Trent claim that it was teaching infallibly??? Answer: NOWHERE. Pointing to the canons marked with anathema in and of themselves does not prove your case since the Church has used this formulary at times for disciplinary matters.

The Council of Trent pioneered a process of using canon lists to recapitulate teachings which were de fide. But no actual claim that they were infallible was made. Prior to Vatican I, it was not a policy of dissidents to make infallibility the criterion of obedience to a teaching or directive. Hence, schismatics and heretics like the Jansenists and Old Catholics simply denied the ecumenicity of the particular councils that they did not like.

Thus, for a true Catholic, the fact that a given council is ecumenical is good enough for them. Besides, at the time of Trent there was no one claiming things like “Well, the ‘Decrees on Reformation’ are simply pastoral opinions I do not have to recognize.” No, the popes made it clear that Trent was to be accepted completely.

Likewise, there was no partitioning of the other synods either. Take Nicaea for example. With the first synod there was the definition of homoousian and the creed. Everything else in the canons of Nicaea was of a disciplinary nature. But these were still recognized as binding by the Church.

Moreover, the Jansenists thought Trent was a “mistake” (they referred to it as Humanist-influenced Council of Trent"); the Old Catholics thought Vatican I was (they said it erred in defining papal infallibility). The Donatists thought that associating in communion with sinful prelates was a “mistake.” The followers of Photius thought that the filioque was a “mistake.” St. Hippolytus and Tertullian thought that the disciplines of Pope St. Callistus I were “abominable.” The Monophysites thought that Chalcedon contradicted Ephesus. The Iconoclasts thought that Nicaea II was against tradition.

Our Lord did not say that the power of binding and loosing was inoperative in the event of a mistake. He did not say “He who hears you hears me – unless you make a mistake.” It is very possible – and history shows not improbable – that an ecclesial authority can command adherence to an unwise policy or directive.

But the most traditional thing a Catholic can do is OBEY. when lawfully constituted authority issues a directive, they are to follow it – barring a command to commit sin. And any attempt to claim that a command is sinful has the heavy weight of the burden of proof on their shoulders – and ANY benefit of the doubt goes to the superior. This is what the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition teach. And as a result, RSiscoe, the type of traditionalism you espouse is false traditionalism.

 

[DavidJoseph]

Something else I’d like to add:

RSiscoe, you said earlier that you’re not a Lefebvrist. Put another way, you essentially claim you’re not schismatic. Well I’ve got news for you – just because you’re not a member of the SSPX or haven’t gone out and started your own church doesn’t mean that you aren’t in schism. Remember that schism is a mortal sin that excommunicates a person and thus bars them from the sacraments. I’m not saying you are guilty of schism (I hope not), but you definitely have a schismatic mentality, which is very dangerous because it can lead to actual schism.

In closing, Vatican II is not optional for any Catholic. If you don’t accept the council or its teachings, then you’re no different from one of those Catholics who claims the Church errs by condemning contraception, refusing to ordain women, etc. – both are cafeteria Catholics.

 

[DavidJoseph]

bump for RSiscoe

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

SFH:

That’s true. But if a court-appointed interpreter translated “I placed the pencil in her hand” as “I beat her hand with a stick,” the court-appointed interpreter would be fired.

The present English translation of the Mass is enough of a departure from the Latin that it falls into the latter category.

Stop settling for mediocrity and demand the best!

We aren’t in a position to demand anything - unfortunately.​

We have to take what we are given.

If invalid matter is used for the Eucharist, there is precious little one can do - but the Eucharist will still be invalid, even so. ##